People v. Martin CA3

Filed 12/14/22 P. v. Martin CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091375

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 05F11358)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

RAYMOND DAVID MARTIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Raymond David Martin was convicted of first degree murder with robbery and burglary special circumstances, and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. We affirmed his convictions on appeal. (People v. Martin (June 8, 2010, C058391) [nonpub. opn.].)

1

Defendant later petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.62 based on changes to the felony murder rule and natural and probable consequences doctrine under Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4, eff. Jan. 1, 2019) (Senate Bill 1437). The court denied defendant’s petition after finding he was ineligible for relief given the jury’s special circumstance findings. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the court’s order denying defendant’s resentencing petition, holding that the jury’s true special circumstance findings, which had not been set aside through habeas, precluded relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. (People v. Martin (Sept. 27, 2021, C091375) [nonpub. opn.].) The California Supreme Court subsequently granted review and transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our opinion and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong). By separate order, we vacated our decision. In supplemental briefing after transfer, the parties agree that under Strong the jury’s true findings on the robbery-murder and burglary-murder special circumstance allegations, which were made before our Supreme Court’s decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark) clarified what it means to be a major participant who acts with reckless indifference to human life, do not render defendant ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Having reconsidered the matter, we agree and will reverse and remand for further proceedings under section 1172.6.